Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[Subduction Zone]

another rabbit trail.

The point is that for blind faith evolutionism to "get off the dime" prokayrotes would have needed to turn themselves into eukaryotes OR ELSE you have to imagine that the dirt,dust-and-gas did not just turn itself into bacteria , but also went straight from dust to amoeba, to eukaryotes. I think that bit of storytelling what be a tall order even for blind faith evolutionists.

Sorry, blind faith is your weakness, not mine. And yes, somehow prokaryotes became eukaryotes. But that is not what you have been arguing. The split between the ancestors of bacteria and eukaryotes probably happened over a billion years ago. Since they would not leave fossils it is very hard to date. But the simple fact is that both have had a billion years to evolve since then. Bacteria would be "a billion years worth of evolution" more complex as are we. Expecting modern bacteria to evolve into something else is as ridiculous as expecting modern eukaryotes to evolve back into single celled life.

Don't complain about rabbit holes when you are trying to drag others down them.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Perhaps a little education would be.

Since all single cell organisms reproduce the same way bacteria do. Binary Fission. So whether bacteria or a simple single cell organism, your problem remains the same.

no, actually, this is completely incorrect. many single celled eukaryotes not only do not regularly reproduce asexually, but quite a few can't do it at all. furthermore, when they do reproduce in this manner, the process is far different than binary fission. that is, only bacteria reproduce via binary fission.

furthermore, bacteria can reproduce in manners similar to sexual reproduction, in that they can share some DNA before performing binary fission.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Still waiting on those sources for quotes, BobRyan.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Bob, your remark about bacteria is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Of course, bacteria will remain bacteria . However, lab studies have shown it is possible to evolve new species of bacteria.

I think Bob is suggesting that evolving multicellular animals from single celled bacteria is fundamentally impossible.

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't think you quite get the picture, Justa. Nice try, but no banana. The Grants have stated that the DNA differences were not as large as one might expect. That is what they are talking about here. As I mentioned in my previous post, they concluded that such similarities suggested that interbreeding was possible among different species. However, Peter Grant has also stated," During our fieldwork on the Galapagos we have observed many examples of hybridization between species of Darwin's finches but the long-term evolutionary effects have been unknown. Now we can safely conclude that interspecies hybridization has played a crucial role in the evolution of the finches and has contributed to their diversity." Also they published a scientific paper, "Inbreeding and Interbreeding in Darwin's Finches," in which they addressed matters concerning "the two inbreeding species." They have also concluded that" if unchecked, hybridization could lead to the fusion of species into one population."

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think Bob is suggesting that evolving multicellular animals from single celled bacteria is fundamentally impossible.

Bacteria often form colonies in which they benefit from staying in a group. Developing interdependence over time, through constant symbiosis, is neither difficult nor unexpected.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Bacteria often form colonies in which they benefit from staying in a group. Developing interdependence over time, through constant symbiosis, is neither difficult nor unexpected.

Yup.

 

[Hoghead1]

OK, I'll try this nice and slow. That is an interesting and very important point, PsychoSarah. Evolution is not about brutal competition. There is a definite altruistic side to it. Bacteria have been known to exhibit altruistic behavior. I posit all entities have feelings and empathy for one another. Such altruistic behavior I take as proof of that. I also posit that altruism and egotism are one, not two exclusive categories. You cannot be happy unless your brother is happy. Such altruistic behavior demonstrates that. I also posit that love is not a mere nicety; love is essential for our survival. Such altruistic behavior does point to that.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

OK, I'll try this nice and slow. That is an interesting and very important point, PsychoSarah. Evolution is not about brutal competition. There is a definite altruistic side to it. Bacteria have been known to exhibit altruistic behavior. I posit all entities have feelings and empathy for one another. Such altruistic behavior I take as proof of that. I also posit that altruism and egotism are one, not two exclusive categories. You cannot be happy unless your brother is happy. Such altruistic behavior demonstrates that. I also posit that love is not a mere nicety; love is essential for our survival. Such altruistic behavior does point to that.

It is a difficult thing for me to consider a bacterium as having emotions.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Feel free to show the mutation in action creating a "different break". Since in fact you cannot show that humans ever produced vitamine C at all. (as we all know)
. . . . . ..

Poor Bob. So completely misunderstanding the basics of evolution theory.

The break in the vitamin c gene in primates happened long before humans evolved. That break was inherited up the line by the primates that followed including us.

So OF COURSE humans never produced vitamin C at all.

Which would seem a poor way to design humans destined to cover the earth via sea voyages away from vitamin c sources. Just sayin.

 

[Hoghead1]

It all depends on your metaphysic, Paul, how you view the basic structure of reality. If you view reality as consisting largely of passive, inert, dead matter, then you may have a problem with the bacteria here. There are other options. I am a panpsychist. I believe that mind and matter are one. All things, in all their aspects consist of minds. Also, I hold with evolution. I believe that what is the case at the top of the scale is also at the bottom, though to a significantly lesser extent. We have been so busy extending mechanical principles up the scale, to explain things, that we have forgotten the need to extend psychological ones down the scale, to better explain things. Also, I have an aesthetic mandate. All perceived qualities of what's out there are qualities of feelings. When you say something out here is red or round, or whatever, you are describing a sensation or feeling you are having.

 

[BobRyan]

Poor Bob. So completely misunderstanding the basics of evolution theory.

The break in the vitamin c gene in primates happened long before humans evolved. .

So that is how the 'story goes' --- humans never had it "to break" after all.

Nor did humans evolve from bacteria - as it turns out.

 

[BobRyan]

I think Bob is suggesting that evolving multicellular animals from single celled bacteria is fundamentally impossible.

And in fact -- it is not "an observation in nature" but rather an "exercise in storytelling" that even fabricates the man from bacteria story line.

Bob, your remark about bacteria is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Of course, bacteria will remain bacteria . .

Another "dead end" for blind faith evolutionism is "seen" by a true believer in it.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

So that is how the 'story goes' --- humans never had it "to break" after all. . . .
.

And yet again we see the misunderstanding carried forth. Humans carry, still, the broken vitamin c gene. They still HAVE it even though it doesn't work.

 

[Colter]

Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT... were the OT writers simply writing what they "thought" and the way they "felt" about God, and not in an actual words God actually said..

Well, my problem is I believe the scientific evidence which casts doubt on some of the Bible writers, BUT, I have too much personal experiencial evidence of a God and other spirits existing on another side beside this one...

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...periencing-part-of-a-pm-conversation.7843548/

My personal experiencial evidence stands on it's very own as enough proof for me, but have I encountered the same God (YHWH) spoke about in the OT, some OT acts and verses by God cast a shadow of a doubt on him being a or the God of Love...

Anyone help?

God Bless!

The Authors and redactors of the Old Testament didn't know about evolution, they made no claim to be writing the Word of God. The pseudo biographical narratives written for public consumption became tradition, sacred and eventually scripture.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It all depends on your metaphysic, Paul, how you view the basic structure of reality. If you view reality as consisting largely of passive, inert, dead matter, then you may have a problem with the bacteria here. There are other options. I am a panpsychist. I believe that mind and matter are one. All things, in all their aspects consist of minds. Also, I hold with evolution. I believe that what is the case at the top of the scale is also at the bottom, though to a significantly lesser extent. We have been so busy extending mechanical principles up the scale, to explain things, that we have forgotten the need to extend psychological ones down the scale, to better explain things. Also, I have an aesthetic mandate. All perceived qualities of what's out there are qualities of feelings. When you say something out here is red or round, or whatever, you are describing a sensation or feeling you are having.

Well, in my point of view, you don't have feelings and minds and such without basic information processing taking place. Bacteria are unable to learn anything . . . except by evolution . . . . and therefore don't, in my opinion, have "feelings" or "emotions" or "empathy" or anything like that.

 

[FredVB]

If you need evolution to be the explanation you will defend it in all ways possible. If you can accept God, you don't need evolution, though you might accept it, but there isn't reason to dismiss the creation account.

 

[Hoghead1]

That isn't going to work FredVB. Evolution is fact, probably one of teh best supported theories in modern science. The Genesis account is , then, totally counterfactual,as is the biblical cosmology generally, with it flat earth, geocentric viewpoint, etc. Furthermore, Genesis actually consists of two conflicting accounts by two different authors from two different time periods.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

If you need evolution to be the explanation you will defend it in all ways possible. If you can accept God, you don't need evolution, though you might accept it, but there isn't reason to dismiss the creation account.

We don't have a "need" for evolution to be the explanation. However, it turns out that evolution IS the explanation, from the physical point of view. We have the evidence to prove it.

 

[Hoghead1]

I hear you, Paul. However, I am working from a metaphysical system very different from yours. You are assuming atoms,passive, inert, dead matter, are the basic building blocks of reality. I am assuming actual occasions or momentary unities of experience are the basic building blocks.